Archive for January, 2012

Issue 40 [@40:48]: Robert Spencer – “Islam understands its earthly mission to be to extend the law of Allah over the world by force. Now, this is distinct from extending the religion by force. Muslims often indignantly deny that Islam was spread by the sword, as the old expression goes, and that anybody is ever forced to convert to Islam. Now, of course forced conversion are a constant hallmark of Islamic history, but they are technically forbidden by Islamic law. Now, the idea in Islam is that Muslims must force to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Not everybody will be forced to become a Muslim but non-Muslims will be relegated to second class status, not be able live in the society equal to the Muslims. And it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to fight to institute that kind of society.”

Rebuttal 40: Robert Spencer now shifts gears and makes utterly baseless allegations against Islam. He is wrong both from secular and doctrinal aspects of Islam. He falsely tries to impress upon the audience that Islam was spread by force and that there were forced conversions under Islam. He uses scare tactics for those unfamiliar with Islam and alleges that it relegates non-Muslims to a second class citizenship. These statements by Spencer are mischievous and a smear against Islam. He stated all this without quoting an example to back up his allegations because there are none. His allegations are addressed as follows:

Rebuttal 40a: Robert Spencer is factually wrong when he states – “Islam understands its earthly mission to be to extend the law of Allah over the world by force.” This and other statements of Spencer were rebutted by Muhammad Ali in 1936, decades before Spencer was even born. In his book, The Religion of Islam, under the topic of Jihad [p. 409-413], Muhammad Ali writes:

The Spread of Islam by Force[?]

The propagation of Islam is no doubt a religious duty of every true Muslim, who must follow the example of the Holy Prophet, but “the spread of Islam by force”, is a thing of which no trace can be found in the Holy Qur’an. On the other hand, the Holy Book lays down the opposite doctrine in clear words. “There is no compulsion in religion”, and the reason is added: “The right way is clearly distinct from error” (2:256). This verse was revealed after the permission for war had been given, and it is therefore certain that the permission to fight has no connection with the preaching of religion. That the Holy Qur’an never taught such a doctrine, nor did the Holy Prophet ever think of it, is a fact which is now being gradually appreciated by the Western mind. After beginning his article on Djihad with the statement that “the spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general”, D.B. Macdonald, the writer of the article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, in a way questions the correctness of his own allegation, by adding that there is nothing in the Holy Qur’an to corroborate it, and that the idea was not present even to the mind of the Holy Prophet:

“In the Meccan Suras of the Kur’an patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Medina the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans. Whether Muhammad himself recognized that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islam may be in doubt. Hadith are explicit on the point [Footnote in the book: It will be shown later on that even Hadith does not teach propagation of Islåm by force.]; but the Kur’anic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless.”

Here is a clear confession that the Holy Qur’an does not enjoin the waging of war against all unbelievers so as to subdue them to Islam, nor was the idea present to the mind of the Holy Prophet. The logical consequence of this confession is that genuine Hadith cannot inculcate such a doctrine, for Hadith reports the saying of the Holy Prophet. And if the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Prophet never taught such a doctrine, how could it be said to be the religious duty of the Muslims? There is obviously a struggle here in the writer’s mind between preconceived ideas and an actual knowledge of facts. [Emphasis added]

Circumstances under which War was Permitted

It is a misstatement of facts to say that patience under attack was taught at Makkah, because there was no other alternative, and that the right to repel attack came at Madinah. The attitude was no doubt changed but that change was due to the change of circumstances. At Makkah there was individual persecution and patience was taught. If the conditions had remained the same at Madinah, the Muslim attitude would have been the same. But individual persecution could no more be resorted to by the Quraish of Makkah, as the Muslims were living out of their reach. This very circumstance fanned the fire of their wrath, and they now planned the extinction of the Muslims as a nation. The sword was taken up to annihilate the Muslim community or to compel it to return to unbelief. That was the challenge thrown at them, and the Holy Prophet had to meet it. The Holy Qur’an bears the clearest testimony to it. The earliest permission to repel attack is conveyed in words which show that the enemy had already taken up the sword or decided to do so: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them — Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, in which Allah’s name is much remembered would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps His cause” (22:39, 40). The very words of this verse show that it is the earliest on the subject of fighting, as it speaks of a permission being given now which evidently had not been given up to this time. This permission was given to a people upon whom war was made by their enemies (yuqatal∂na); and it was not a permission to make war with people in general but only with the people who made war on them, and the reason is stated plainly “because they are oppressed” and “have been expelled from their homes without a just cause.” It was clearly an aggressive war on the part of the enemies of Islam who thus sought to exterminate the Muslims or to compel them to forsake their religion: “And they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion if they can” (2:217). It was a holy war in the truest sense because, as stated further on, if war had not been allowed under these circumstances, there would be no peace on earth, no religious liberty, and all houses for the worship of God would be destroyed. Indeed there could be no war holier than the one which was needed as much for the religious liberty of the Muslims as for the principle of religious liberty itself, as much to save the mosques as to save the cloisters and the synagogues and churches. If there had ever been a just cause for war in this world, it was for the war that had been permitted to the Muslims. And undoubtedly war with such pure motives was a jihad, a struggle carried on simply with the object that truth may prosper and that freedom of conscience may be maintained.

The second verse giving to the Muslims permission to fight runs as follows: “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, and be not aggressive; surely Allah loves not the aggressors” (2:190). Here again the condition is plainly laid down that the Muslims shall not be the first to attack, they had to fight — it had now become a duty—but only against those who fought against them; aggression was expressly prohibited. And this fighting in self-defence is called fighting in the way of Allah (fi sabilillah), because fighting in defence is the noblest and justest of all causes. It was the cause Divine, because if the Muslims had not fought they would have been swept out of existence, and there would have been none to establish Divine Unity on earth. These were the very words in which the Holy Prophet prayed in the field of Badr: “O Allah! I beseech Thee to fulfil Thy covenant and Thy promise; O Allah! if Thou wilt (otherwise), Thou wilt not be worshipped anymore” (Bu.56:89). The words fi sabili-llah are misinterpreted by most European writers as meaning the propagation of Islam. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Muslims were not fighting to force Islam on others; rather they were being fought to force them to renounce Islam, as shown by (2:217) quoted above. What a travesty of facts to say that war was undertaken by the Muslims for the propagation of Islam!

It is sometimes asserted that these injunctions, relating to defensive fighting, were abrogated by a later revelation in ch. 9. Yet anyone who reads that chapter cannot fail to note that it does not make the slightest change in the principles laid down earlier. Fighting with idolaters is enjoined in the ninth chapter, but not with all of them. In the very first verse of that chapter, the declaration of immunity is directed towards only “those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement” not all the idolaters—and even in their case an exception is made. “Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their terms; for Allah loves those who keep their duty’’ (9:4). This shows that there were idolatrous tribes on friendly terms with the Muslims, and the Muslims were not allowed to fight with them; it was only the hostile tribes who broke their agreements and attacked the Muslims that were to be fought against. And individual idolaters, even if belonging to hostile tribes, could still have safety, if they wanted to enquire about Islam, and were given a safe conduct back home even if they did not accept Islam: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek protection by thee, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not” (9:6). The idolater who stood in need of protection evidently belonged to a hostile tribe, because the friendly tribes, being in alliance with the Muslims, had no need of seeking protection of the Muslim government. Thus even a hostile idolator was to be sent back safely to his own tribe and not molested in anyway, as the words of the verse show. The idolaters with whom fighting was enjoined were those who had violated treaties and were foremost in attacking Muslims, as the words that follow show: “If they prevail against you, they respect neither ties of relationship, nor of covenant in your case” (9:8). “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger and they attacked you first” (9:13). Thus chapter 9, which is supposed to abrogate the earlier verses, still speaks of fighting only against those idolaters who “attacked you first”, and this is the very condition laid down in earlier verses, such as (2:190). [Emphasis added]

Rebuttal 40b: Spencer self contradicts when he states – “Now, of course forced conversion are a constant hallmark of Islamic history, but they are technically forbidden by Islamic law.”

At least there is admission by Spencer that it is “technically forbidden by Islamic law” to force convert anyone to Islam either by a direct or implied threat or any act of discrimination. Thank you Mr. Spencer for clarification. This doctrine of freedom of religion for all is based upon merits of Islam unlike dogmas of Christianity. The latter has spared no mythology to make a laughing stock of God and religion. Couple of verses of Quran separate Spencer’s confabulated view of history from reality of history i.e.

2:256-7. There is no compulsion in religion — [and as proven historically] the right way [of Islam] is indeed clearly distinct from error [i.e. of Christianity]. So whoever disbelieves in the devil [of forced conversions, colonization, exploitation, slavery of souls– both literally and figuratively] and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Allah is the Friend of those who believe — He brings them out of darkness into light. And those who disbelieve, their friends are the devils who take them out of light into darkness [and Christian history is a testament to all this]. They are the companions of the Fire; in it they abide [both in here and hereafter].

If forced conversions were constant hallmark of Islamic history, then why is it so that it is the Christian Spain which is remembered for Inquisition, its trials, executions and exiles rather than the Muslim Dynasty that ruled Spain for 800 years? The latter are remembered for reviving the Jewish art and culture. If Spencer is so true in his assertion, then why India has more than a billion Hindus and the Muslims in sub-continent are still a minority, even though India was ruled for centuries by Muslim rulers? The Mogul Emperors were known for having Hindu wives and Hindu artists and generals as prominent members of their courts. Why the largest country in the world, Indonesia, never saw a foreign Muslim soldier on its soil? Spencer might be disappointed by these facts of history, if nothing else, by his own words i.e. his fabricated forced conversions are “technically forbidden by Islamic law.”

On the reverse, why does Spencer fail to tell the world the plight of Incas, Mayas and Aztecs and all the exploitation of the lands and its peoples that was wrought in the name of Salvation by his own religion where Christianity was spread at the tip of sword to save the ‘heathens’ from their own selves. Christianity claims ‘love’ and ‘forgiveness’ at its core. But the history tells us otherwise. With this kind of ‘love’ who needs ‘hate’.

Rebuttal 40c: Spencer – “Now, the idea in Islam is that Muslims must force to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Not everybody will be forced to become a Muslim but non-Muslims will be relegated to second class status, not be able live in the society equal to the Muslims. And it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to fight to institute that kind of society.”

Sufficient is to say that this statement of Spencer is false, fabricated and absurd. Islam has nothing to do with Spencer’s allegation towards non-Muslims. Spencer is repeating himself. He instigated before the same topic by totally absurd meaning of ‘Dhimmi’, which was answered in Issue 15d. The movie falters at the door steps of simple dictionary and equates Islam with war, whereas it means peace, it equates Dhimmi as second class citizen, while it factually means extra care and burdened responsibility of the state towards its minorities.

‘Dictionary of Holy Quran’ authored by Maulana Abdul Manan Omar sahib is very popular among Black American Muslims belonging to Imam Warith Deen Muhammad organization. It is used in their Holy Quran teaching classes and in their Arabic Language teaching classes. In their organ ‘Muslim Journal’ a weekly section based on this dictionary is published. Recently this organization did a blog talk radio interview of Maulana Abdul Manan sahib’s son Professor Hibbatul-Manan Omar, Ph.D. (alias Khalid Omar). This interview is about life and academic works of Abdul Manan Omar sahib. Hopefully readers of this blog will find this interview informative. It is in English.

Issue 39a: Walid Shoebat – “Shaheed, the word Shaheed, means witness, to witness to testify, to testify there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger. And you die as a Shaheed for that cause, you are a witness, you are considered a witness and martyr, and a martyr becomes glorified. Your family will glorify you after you die.”

Rebuttal 39a: One of the many tactics employed by this documentary is to keep repeating an allegation, no matter how false. Sooner or later it will psychologically stick with the audience as the truth. Shaheed interpreted as a martyr is one such construct that this documentary keeps repeating and wrongly attributes it to acts of terrorism. This wrong perception of Martyrdom attributed to Islam was clarified in detail in the Issue 34 under the heading ‘Martyrdom’ based upon excerpted section from the book “Islam, Peace and Tolerance” [p. 50-2] by Dr. Zahid Aziz.

Footnote – Shoebat himself acknowledges that Shaheed means witness. Thus, it would be totally ridiculous to substitute the word ‘martyr’ for ‘witness’ in Quran e.g.

“Allah is witness of what you do” (3:98)

“Allah is sufficient as a witness between us and you” (10:29).

Issue 39b: Walid Shoebat – “To a Muslim fundamentalist living in the Middle East I had to be initiated. I had to basically either kill my first Jew or destroy my first Zionist infrastructure. I had to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that I was worthy. And there are ample amount of students, teenagers, men, who are willing to die a suicide martyrs. Willing to put explosives. The martyr application is filled. There are many applicants. There are not enough bombs to fulfill the applicants. And to get in one of those missions indeed you must have been chosen. You must have been really good. You must have been violent enough. You must have been going out on every demonstration in the streets of Jerusalem or Bethlehem or our village. You must have shown yourself worthy of a greater operation. So when I explained what I have done and people have seen me in the community and I was worthy, [pause] I ended up in prison, I was of course recruited. And I remember Mr. Mahmud Al-Mughrabi. He was a proud, he was proud to have planted fifteen bombs. Killed many Israelis. He was being bailed out by a Jewish-Israeli lawyer. He back right in the street. So you find your bomb maker and you apply. You say, ‘look, I want to join, I want to do my first martyr operation, planting a bomb, whatever’ and you need connection. I found my connection. I rendezvous with this guy in Jerusalem in [unclear location] and he built this explosive charge with a timer in a loaf of bread and I had to smuggle it from the Temple Mount under the auspices of Al-Waqf department. Al-Waqf police is the Islamic police appointed by the government to watch over the holy sites. Them knowingly that I have explosive charges, smuggle me so that I can escape from the check points. There I carried my explosive charge from Jerusalem to Bank Leumi in Bethlehem. I was supposed to place the explosive charge at 6 pm exactly. I was supposed to have this explosive charge in my hand at 6 pm exactly. Five to six [o,clock] I saw some Arab children running around and I did not want to kill any Arabs. So, I decided to place this explosive charge on the roof, I tossed it on the roof. At 6 pm it went off and there was this big explosion. I looked behind me. I see a thick black smoke coming out of the building. And I started running. That’s the moment I first got a glimpse of the reality of killing. I thought people have died. And, I remember, I didn’t sleep for three days, constantly worried that I have killed somebody. Even terrorists have reality check that you kill or about to die. You can sense it. This is why in Israel, the way the nature of finding out a suicide bomber is to look at their eyes. They will have these glossy eyes. They are sweating profusely. They are not paying attention because in their mind they are about to go. And its, you weight the reality that now you are gonna die. Many times I have been in this situation or I had thought I was going to get killed shooting back and forth as we stone at the Israelis and they shoot back at us and things like that. I was face to face with death. When you think in your minds that you are going to die, you struggle between the requirements of your Islamic upbringing and between the reality that you value your life. And, at some point one has to outweigh the other. And, for a Muslim fundamentalist we always chose death. We always chose the suicide. My cousin died on his way to Ben-Yahuda street and he got killed. He died. I had people and relatives die fighting the Israelis. And as I look at now, I think what a waste. What a waste of life!”

Rebuttal 39b: Shoebat once again fabricates facts and logic for a scripted tearjerker account of his past. He cunningly chooses his words. To insinuate the audience he tacitly mentions the Temple Mount i.e. Al-Aqsa Mosque where allegedly his bomb was made. Then he makes sure that Al-Waqf police is mentioned as his accomplice in the terror plot. Like the plot of DaVinci Code, he touches every landmark in the holy land. Whom is Shoebat trying to fool or please? Equivalent of his lies in Christian world would be a Vatican staff member who manufactures a bomb for a terrorist in Sistine Chapel and then the Pontifical Swiss Guards of the Vatican slip the terrorist and his bomb into some populated part of Rome, e.g. St. Peter’s Square. His synthesized facts are laughable. Probably, of many reasons, it was this fantastic account that caught the attention of CNN. His self awakening to Christianity based upon his past of being a “terrorist” is rubbished by the CNN investigative journalism (see Part – 1 of “Ex Terrorist Rakes’ in homeland security bucks”).

CNN was not able to locate any incidence or police report of bombing of the bank that Shoebat takes “credit” for. The video clip clearly shows that the bank is housed in a tall building. It is just impossible for someone to lob up a bomb from street level to its roof, unless it is Shoebat throwing it in his fantasies of Marvel Comics characters the Fantastic Four. There are no police records of Shoebat’s self alleged arrests and imprisonment in Israel. Even his family members mock his fabricated “terrorist” activities. Obviously, Shoebat is more of a wannabe terrorist or a terrorist of a make belief for the gullible Western audience.

Shoebat not only unravels himself by his lies, he factually throws the whole documentary into a pseudo-intellectual gutter. Looking back at the previous issues, all his arguments similarly appear hollow and fabricated to please certain audience and pocketbooks.

Since, Shoebat is trying to placate certain masters who see the ghettoized-apartheid perpetrators as righteous and the subjugated populace as terrorists, it begets a review of the history of Palestine in last century. Shoebat might be surprised to find that founders of terrorism in Middle East are none but the founders of Israel, of which Yitzhak Shamir rose to be the Prime Minister. He wrote the book on terrorism and lived the life of one. The following is a direct quote from the written doctrine of LEHI group, a terrorist organization that he belonged to:

Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.” But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.

It is quite difficult to reconcile the morality of last sixty years of Middle East geopolitics through the lens of this documentary. Recent history tells us that even if you are a terrorist, like Yitzhak Shamir, in cahoots with Nazis, you can be rewarded with land and country for your terrorist killings, face no accountability, then rise to the highest office in the country by an election which in turn itself reflects the lack of morality of the electorate – that enforces racism, apartheid, forced ghetto segregation for the occupied, kills indiscriminately, even chokes the food, water and electricity of the subjugated, robs the minorities of their present and future – then you belong to a civilized world, you are the citizen of the “lone democracy in the Middle East.”

Next time, Mr. Shoebat when you see rebellion in the walled-off ghettos in the Middle East, please be mindful that rebels might be borrowing a page from none other but the holy book of the occupiers or the script of the founding fathers of the occupiers. Quran is fully cognizant of such double standards of civility, human rights and right of self-determination that are allowed as a right to occupiers and the transplanted, yet denied to the natives who are occupied and displaced:

83:1-13.Woe to the cheaters, who, when they take the measure (of their dues) from people, take it fully, but when they measure out to others or weigh out for them, they give less than is due! Do they not think that they will be raised again, to a mighty day? — the day when mankind will stand before the Lord of the worlds. No, surely the record of the wicked is in the prison. And what will make you know what the prison is? It is a written book. Woe on that day to the rejectors who call the day of Judgment a lie! And none calls it a lie but every exceeder of limits, every sinful one; when Our messages are recited to him, he says: Stories of the ancients!

Terrorism, whether committed by the Prime Minister of a country or a homeless of the native land; terrorism, whether sanctioned by actual words of Torah or fabricated in the name of Islam has no room in Quran:

5:32. …We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, unless it is for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind. And certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them commit excesses in the land.

Paragraph 4:
and support the government in power.6 Bashir-ud-Din took a similar stand, and criticized the important Ahmadi missionary to Great Britain, Kwaja Kamal-ud-Din, for becoming involved in these political issues. The result was that, after the election, Kamal-ud-Din and Muhammad Ali, the editor of the Ahmadi journal, The Review of Religions, left Qadian with a group of their own supporters, and established a new organization in Lahore.”

I would leave it to Dr. Zahid Aziz to comment on this preposterous feed given by Qadianis to Mr. Brush.

I would like to comment on another statement.

Paragraph 10:

“Since coming to Rabwah, one important vision dealt with the matter of water supply. The precise location of the only successful tube well in the town was revealed to him.”

I am going to share story that marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib, son of Maulana Noor-ud-Din sahib narrated to me in last year or so of his life. To establish veracity of my statement, I state it under oath, keeping Allah SWT as my witness. Per Abdul Manan Omar sahib:

“When land in Rabwah was acquired by [Qadiani] Jamaat, Khalifa sahib (QK 2) asked me to go there and make arrangements for upcoming annual Jalsa [annual gathering of Qadianis in month of December in Pakistan]. I asked Khalifa sahib that it is not feasible to hold such gathering as it is arid land and it will be difficult to find sweet water source there. Khalifa sahib said, “I don’t know just go and make arrangements”. [Manan Omar sahib was in charge of annual jalsa for many years since days in Qadian, so he had to perform his duty–RJ]. First thing was to find a suitable place for Langar-Khana (large size kitchen for attendees of jalsa). Tenets were placed. Then problem came up where to dig for well. Where I was standing, I asked well diggers to dig here. It just happened that by chance well was successful and water was sweet. This story reached Khalifa sahib, in Lahore and in his speech he (QK 2) made the whole story of his “revelation” of only sweet water well”.

Please remember: It was practice of QK 2 to make statements after the facts, and tell his audience that he had revelation regarding this event before it took place, and he told his vision/ revelation to his wife Murriam-Sadiqa. QK 2 never published his prophecy or announced in public before its fulfillment. He also knew no body will go and verify with QK 2 wife Murriam-Sadiqa, anyways.

QK 2 had resources to publish his side of ‘Sweet Water Well’ story. Qadianis believe in QK 2 version. At the same time many people, including myself, know very well that QK 2 was repeatedly accused of sexual immorality in his life time. Some victims accused him personally; others testified that QK 2’s biological daughters and sons have accused QK 2 in their presence. It is historical fact that QK 2 never made an effort to exonerate him from such extreme accusations. It is also historical fact that neither of QK 2 daughters and nor his sons have denied accusations made on him with reference to them. Given these realities, I would accept marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib’s version.

Footnote: Abdul Manan Omar sahib passed away in end of July 2006, and was buried in Lahore, Pakistan. His son Khalid Omar, Ph.D. was staying at their family home in J-block, Model Town, Lahore. People came to pay their condolences and offer Fatiah prayer. A group of bearded people from Al-Hadith Jamaat visited and offered Fatiah. Among them there was a person who was one of the well diggers, he narrated his first interaction with Manan sahib in Rabwah on occasion of well digging. He narrated the story there.

Issue 38 [@32:22]: Mr. Serge Trifkovic – “It is a very dangerous element of Islamic teaching because this instant gratification through martyrdom is an attractive concept. And by the way, when the so called martyr operation is carried out by Hammas, what is announced from the minarets of mosques is not the death of so and so who carried out the attack, but the wedding of so and so to the hooris. In other words, they immediately make the implication that far from having to cry over his disappearance over the end of his physical life, his parents should be happy and celebrate and throw a party because their son is now being not only transported into heaven but greeted there with these voluptuous beauties.”

Rebuttal 38: Trifkovic gives a totally wrong perception of martyrdom in Islam when he states – “It is a very dangerous element of Islamic teaching because this instant gratification from martyrdom is an attractive concept.” His argument hinges on the assumption that humans can confer the status of martyr on someone. In Islam, humans can only pray for someone to be granted the status of a martyr after his death. According to Quran this prerogative is only with God. Various aspects of martyrdom and the distortion of hooris, which are “voluptuous beauties” to Trifkovic were fully dealt with in Rebuttals 34 and 35 before. Besides possibly Trifkovic, it is doubted if anyone has actually seen a heavenly hoori to give the description of “voluptuous beauty?” Muhammad had this to say about an apparent martyr:

“The first of men (whose case) will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be a man who died as a martyr. He shall be brought (before the Judgment Seat). Allah will make him recount His blessings and he will recount them. Then will Allah say: What did you do? He will say: I fought for You until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a brave warrior. And you were called so. (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into hell.” (Sahih Muslim, book: ‘Government’; in A.H. Siddiqui translation book 20, ch. 43, number 4688.) [Islam, Peace and Tolerance, p 51]

Suicide has no support in Quran. On the reverse, self-preservation is a duty. See Rebuttal 33.

Christianity has to be credited, if not blamed for infusing non-sense in other cultures and religious thought. Christianity influenced other peoples in such a manner that the neo-cultural values and myths adopted by latter found expression as rituals and canons in the name of the prevalent religion. In the Issues discussed so far we seen such examples of stoning to death for blasphemy (Rebuttal 21, Leviticus 24:10-23), the infamous verse of sword in Bible (Rebuttal 28 – Matthews 10:34), the aggression of Holy wars – Crusades, stoning to death for adultery and now killing oneself with a reward in heaven can be attributed to none but the Bible.

The suicide bombing in Middle East stems from the Biblical tradition of Jesus that has seeped into that culture through Christianity. Jesus while predicting his own death said, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Those who love their life will lose it, while those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.” John 12:23-26

In the light of above Bible quote, Trifkovic failed to ask the fundamental question from the to be suicide bombers about their living situation under occupation, generation after generation, in Palestine as to – do they hate their life in this world? Chances are that Trifkovic will be “surprised” to get “Yes” as an answer. To such a suicide bomber, Bible gives solace – that the bomber “will keep it [-his reward] for eternal life.” after his suicide.

When a Mullah glorifies the death of a suicide bomber, he is factually glorifying words of Bible – “They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” Revelation 12:11-12

Suicides in the name of self-sacrifice andmayhem have no place in Quran. Yet, Quran is not apologetic when it decrees self-defense against an imposed aggression and persecution:

2:190. And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but do not be aggressive. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors.

2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter.

2:193. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah [ – the Lord of Mankind, i.e. secure religious freedom for all]. But if they cease, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

2:194. …Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted…

Quran is strictly against any aggression or preventive war (which is distinct from preemptive strike in an existing state of war), the values that stand even today in the Charter of United Nations.

Since Trifkovic gives specific example of Palestine, it becomes important to understand the historical perspective of the Middle East. Christianity had a long run to ingrain certain not too proud values in the local culture. Both Judaism and Christianity has its own litany of Martyrs that are extolled in their religious literature till today. Why is Trifkovic anguished if a frustrated Palestinian suicide bomber retaliates against tyrannical apartheid or walks in step of Hannah, Ten Martyrs, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ignatius and others, who all landed in heaven. In light of such a precedence, how can Trifkovic deny others to kill themselves or get killed in their sleep by bombs, so as to be Martyrs? Martyr literally means Witness – to his faith and cause. How different is the fate of these founders of Martyrology than a suicide bomber? Unknown to Trifkovic, but from his own mouth, he lays out the Biblical standards of salvation for those committing suicide or offering themselves to be killed i.e. – “…they [-the Mullahs] immediately make the implication that far from having to cry over his [-suicide] disappearance over the end of his physical life, his parents should be happy and celebrate and throw a party because their son is now being not only transported into heaven.”

Just for the record, getting killed while killing other non-combatants is not an invention of modern day “Jihadists.” That credit goes to the “Judaists” – Sicarii, the Jihadists almost two thousand years ago who were protesting their deprivation from the same temple that Jihadist of today have a cause for. There are other big hitters escaping the attention of the documentary including Kamikazes and LTTE to name a few who have large set of badges of carnage on their lapels.

Mr. Trikovic, at least this documentary gave us a common cause. Lets join hands and eliminate the source spring of such suicides, the doctrine of self-immolation and submission of oneself to be killed without resistance for a salvation, which is found in none other than Bible and Christianity. Lets move on to the Final Testament, the Quran, which categorically states:

Issue 37 [@31:15]: Walid Shoebat – “Jihad in Islam means struggle. That’s what the literal meaning of the word, struggle. But what the West doesn’t understand is that the hadith, the compilation of the traditions of Prophet Muhammad of Islam is almost 100 hadiths regarding Jihad. And if you look at every single one of them, every single one of them have the sword, war or a military effort. And in the end of the expedition, Jihad expedition, he [Muhammad] said – Now I resort to the jihad within, the jihad that is within the self-struggle. And as a matter of fact, I had this dialog with an Islamist one time, he says – ‘Walid, come-on, tell the West that Jihad means struggle.’ I said, ‘Yes, it does mean self-struggle, you’re right. Jihad does mean self-struggle, but so does Mein Kamph.’ Mein Kampf means My Struggle. In the same fashion, the Islamists look at Jihad.”

Rebuttal 37: To a western audience, Shoebat might come across as well read with catchy punch lines, tie-ins and bridging phrases. What they do not know is that his is a clichéd style of a typical swindling carpet seller or a story teller in back streets of Middle East where he is from, a style which has lots of song but no substance. Rebuttal to his “scholarly” rant needs a breakdown as follows:

Rebuttal 37a: Shoebat, like Al-Araby in Issue 36, could not hide the true meaning of Jihad. He admits – “Jihad in Islam means struggle. That’s what the literal meaning of the word, struggle….”

He seeks refuge in broad swipes against Hadiths without quoting any specifics. Whatever specifics he musters can be heard from his mouth – “… But what the West doesn’t understand is that the hadith, the compilation of the traditions of Prophet Muhammad of Islam is almost 100 hadiths regarding Jihad. And if you look at every single one of them, every single one of them have the sword, war or a military effort. And in the end of the expedition, Jihad expedition, he [Muhammad] said – Now I resort to the jihad within, the jihad that is within the self-struggle…”

What does Shoebat expect of Muhammad when the latter spoke about a defensive war? Should Muhammad had given lectures on how to best offer oneself for crucifixion when faced with a defensive war? Any unbiased audience who lives in a real world can read very clearly even in Shoebat’s own words the preference of Muhammad to struggle within the person over the struggle of an imposed defensive war. Obviously, the struggle of person with his/her inner demons is intellectually and morally much higher struggle than an outward war in self defense. What is wrong and immoral with such a teaching? Burden is on Shoebat to explain his preaching, not on Muhammad, not on Quran and not on Hadiths in light of Quran. The partial Hadith that he refers to is addressed in the article below.

Meanings of the word jihad
The subject of jihad is so thoroughly misunderstood both by Western scholars and by the bulk of Muslims themselves that it will be well to point out what really constitutes jihad. In order to do so, it is necessary to analyse the word and to show when and how it was first used.

Etymologically the root is jahd, “he exerted himself”, and the infinitive that is formed from it means “utmost exertion”. Its first use amongst Arabic authors refers to that particular exertion which takes place under great difficulties, and, when applied to religious matters, it means an exertion under religious difficulties on behalf of the true religion.

It will be seen at once how a word of this kind would be subject to interpretations according to circumstances. Taking into consideration the surrounding life of an Arab, if he forces his camel or horse to take a desperate ride through the night so as to surprise the violators of his peace before the early morn, it is jihad; if he appeals to his kinsmen to shake off their lethargy and to rally round the tribal standard or to spread the opinions of the true faith, it is jihad; and if he abstains alike from worldly cares and amusements in order to find that peace which meditation alone can give in spite of an obdurate heart, it is jihad. Nor can the student‟s jihad in poring over his books, the merchant‟s jihad in amassing money, the ploughman’s jihad in winning food from an obstinate soil, be forgotten.

So that when people say that jihad means the duty of the Muslims to wage war against a non-Muslim government or country and call this jihad (although it is possible that under certain circumstances this use of the word might be legitimate), they really talk nonsense, and cast an undeserved libel on a religion with which they are not acquainted.

Different meanings of the word jihad
Like other Arabic roots, jihad has first a concrete and then an applied meaning. This applied meaning varies according to the circumstances of Arabian life and the development of Arabic literature, but never loses its original keynote of exertion against difficulties.

Jihad, therefore, in the first form of that root, is applied to exertion, and in the third, sixth, and eighth forms to the unsparing exertion in speech or action, or in order to arrive at a correct opinion in spite of difficulties. Thus, an examiner in dealing with a candidate and a physician in treating a patient have tasks before them which tax their power; and so has a petitioner who wishes to extract a favour from an official.

In the third form, which adds the notion of causation to that of the original meaning, the object which causes exertion is obviously put into the foreground, and as resistance is greater, so efforts must be increased. These adverse things are generally objects of disapprobation. As with the Christian, the Muslim has to wage war with “the world, the flesh, and the devil,” and so jihad is of three kinds, namely, against a visible enemy, against the devil, and against one‟s self; and all these three opponents are included in the term jihad, as used in the 22nd chapter of the Koran, verse 27 {Editor’s Note: The opening words of verse 78 must be meant here}. Thus, to fight an enemy under conditions of great difficulty and opposition, the enemy doing the same, is jihad, it being remembered that the earliest enemies with whom Islam had to fight for its very existence were non-Muslims desirous of suppressing a hated religion. It was only natural that when reference was made to a “jihad in the path of God” the word should have come to mean a fight in the cause of religion, and that, finally, when the words “in the path of God” were dropped in ordinary conversation, or writing, it should assume the meaning of a “religious war”, which it has kept to the present day.

Various other forms of the word jihad
The other forms of the word jihad continue the general meaning of the original form as modified by the super-added value of the derived form. Thus, to the labourer it becomes in the fourth form the entering upon land, such as is termed “jihad, a desert, a plain”, or “open, barren country,” whilst in dealing with affairs, that form adds “the necessity of prudence, precaution, and sound judgement.” The physical result of this is the old man‟s hoariness and the appearance of white hair in the dark beard, but exertions steadfastly prosecuted have the effect of both concrete and abstract difficulties being removed, and, therefore, ajhad means that “the earth, the road, or the truth become open to him who takes trouble,” and finally ajhad means that “the matter in hand becomes within one‟s reach.”

We now, passing over the sixth form as being very much the same in meaning as the first, approach the eighth, which has had such an importance in the theological government of the Shi‘ah community in which the mujtahids are the scholastic witnesses, commentators, and guides of the faith, whose words, whether it be at Lahore, at Lucknow, or at Tehran, the faithful of the Shi‘ah sect find it impossible to resist. Mujtahid as a conventional term means “a lawyer exerting the faculty of the mind to the utmost for the purpose of forming a right opinion in a case of law respecting a doubtful and difficult point by means of reasoning and comparison,” and, similarly, ijtihad means “the referring a case proposed to the judge respecting a doubtful and difficult point from the method of analogy to the Koran and the Sunnah.”

The simple noun, jahd, therefore, obviously means power, ability, labour, effort, a stringent oath, or else the difficulty, affliction, or fatigue with which the above named qualities have to contend. Physiologically, of course, disease is jahd. The trouble of a large family combined with poverty, or the difficulty of a poor man in paying exorbitant taxes, are all jahd. Applied to land, jihad has already been explained to be the land, in which there is herbage, or level and rugged land, sterile and ungrateful, though it is also applied to land of which the herbage is much eaten by cattle in the form jahid. Mujhid, if referred to a friend, shows that he is a sincere and careful adviser; if applied to oneself, denotes an embarrassed condition, and if to one‟s beast, one that is weak by reason of fatigue. The passive participle of jahd similarly refers to the distressed condition of affairs, of disease, of dearth, or drought; but we think we have said enough to prove that none of the meanings in any of the forms necessarily implies the fighting of a man because he is of a different religion, or the opposition to a non-Muslim government, and that it even does not go so far as the word crusade, as animating a community in an attempt to oust the unbeliever from foreign land in order to obtain the guardianship of the Holy Sepulchre, or to simply wrest land from the Muslims for the glory of a most Christian king.

Jihad, to summarise the ordinary meanings as given by Arabic lexicographers, is simply as follows:

- Jahd – To exert oneself, endure fatigue, to become emaciated from disease, to examine, to extract butter from milk, to wish for food, to live in straitened circumstances.
– Jihadat – The hard ground which has no vegetation.
– Jihad – War with an enemy.
– Ijhad – The increase of white hair, the unfolding of truth, exertion, and (in special applications) to divide and to waste property.

The Prophet’s perception of holy war
When some people applied to Muhammad for permission to join in a holy war against those who were oppressing Muslims, he replied to them:

“Your true jihad is in endeavouring to serve your parents.”

The Quran, when using the word jihad, seems preferentially to use it for war with sin:

“Whoever wages jihad in morality We will show him the true way.” (29:69)

Elsewhere (25:52), the Koran exhorts us to fight infidels with the “great jihad”, the sword of the spirit and the arguments of the Muslim Bible.

In the traditions regarding the sayings and doings of the Prophet, a band of holy warriors is returning cheerfully from a victorious war with infidels to the peace of their homes and the tranquil observation of their faith. In passing the Prophet, they exclaim:

“We have returned from the small jihad” (the war with the aggressors on the Muslim faith) “to the great jihad” (the war with sin).

No compulsion in religion
The principal references in the Koran relating to religious war are found in the following chapters.

No violence is to be used in religious matters, although the popular impression is that this is the very essence of Islam. The second chapter of the Quran distinctly lays down:

“Let there be no violence in religion” (2:256).

This passage was particularly directed to some of Muhammad‟s first proselytes, who, having sons who had been brought up in idolatry or Judaism, wished to compel them to embrace Islam. Indeed, even when the mothers of non-Muslim children wanted to take them away from their believing relatives, Muhammad prevented every attempt to retain them. The second chapter similarly says:

“Surely those who believe (viz. Muslims) and those who are Jews, and Christians and Sabaeans, whoever believes in God, in the last day, and does that which is right, they shall have their reward of their Lord” (2:62).

These words are repeated in the fifth chapter, and, no doubt, several Muslim doctors consider it to be the doctrine of their prophet that every man may be saved in his own religion, provided he be sincere and lead a good life. However, under the pressure of the followers of Muhammad, this latitude was curtailed and was explained to mean “if he became a Muslim,” though this explanation is manifestly a faulty one, because if an idolater became a Moslem, he would be equally saved, and so there would be no difference between him and an Ahl-e Kitab (possessor of a sacred book) namely, a Christian or a Jew.

The fact is that there is an essential difference between the chapters delivered at Mecca and those delivered at Medina. In the first case, we have the utterances of one who, as a true prophet, calls people to repentance and to a godly life apart from worldly considerations. In the chapters, however, given at Medina, we necessarily find these worldly considerations paramount, Islam struggling for its very existence, and being confronted, not only with the necessity of legislation among its own followers, but also with the organisation of war, and with the circumstances that give rise to it or the results that follow from it; so that it is obvious that instructions given to warriors or in a code of legislation must differ from appeals to salvation. It is only in bearing in mind the circumstances under which each particular instruction was given that we can come to a right conclusion as to whether war with infidels, as such, is legitimate or not.

We have no hesitation in stating that an unbiased study of the Muslim scriptures will lead one to the conclusion that all those who believe in God and act righteously will be saved. Indeed, the ground is cut off from under the feet of those people who maintain that jihad is intended to propagate the Muslim religion by means of the sword. It is, on the contrary, distinctly laid down in the chapter called The Pilgrimage, that the object of jihad is to protect mosques, churches, synagogues, and monasteries from destruction (22:40), and we have yet to learn the name of the Christian crusader whose object it was to protect mosques or synagogues. Of course, when the Arabs were driven from Spain, to which they had brought their industry and learning, by Ferdinand and Isabella, and were driven into opposition to Christians, the modern meaning of jihad as hostility to Christianity was naturally accentuated. Indeed, jihad is so essentially an effort for the protection of Islam against assault, that the Muslim generals were distinctly commanded not to attack any place in which the Muslim call to prayer could be performed or in which a single Muslim could live unmolested as a witness to the faith.

Permission to fight against aggression
Fighting for religion is, indeed, encouraged in the second chapter, which was given under circumstances of great provocation, but even in that it is distinctly laid down:

“And fight for the religion of God against those that fight against you, but transgress not by attacking them first, for God loves not the transgressors; kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out of that whereof they have dispossessed you, for temptation to idolatry is more grievous than slaughter; yet fight not against them in the holy temple until they attack you therein, and if they attack you, slay them, but if they desist, God is gracious and merciful; fight therefore against them until there be no temptation to idolatry and the religion be God‟s, but if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against the ungodly” (2:190–193).

In other words, fight sin but not the sinner in times of peace. Again, in the third chapter, when the Lord of Hosts is invoked as being more powerful than all the confronting armies of enemies, when the Quraish endeavoured to induce the Muslims to return to their old idolatry as they fled in the battle of Ohud, the encouragement to fight given in that chapter has, of course, only special application:

“How many prophets have encountered foes who had myriad troops, and yet they desponded not in their mind for what had befallen them in fighting for the religion of God, and were not weakened (in their belief), neither behaved themselves in an abject manner …” (3:145).

“God gave them the reward of this world and a glorious reward in the life to come” (3:147).

And again: We will surely cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers (3:150), in allusion to the Quraish repenting that they had not utterly extirpated the Muslims, and to their beginning to think of going back to Medina for that purpose, but being prevented by a sudden panic which fell from God.

Again, in the fourth chapter, Fight therefore for the religion of God, and oblige not any one to do what is difficult except thyself (4:84). This is in allusion to the Muslims refusing to follow their prophet to the lesser expedition of Badr so that he was obliged to set out with no more than seventy men. In other words, the Prophet only was under the obligation of obeying God‟s commands, however difficult.

“However, excite the faithful to war, perhaps God will restrain the courage of the unbelievers, for God is stronger than they and more able to punish. He who intercedes between men with a good intercession shall have a portion thereof” (4:84–85).

And further on, When you are saluted with a salutation, salute the person with a better salutation (4:86). In other words, when the purely Muslim salutation of Salam aleikum is given by a Muslim, the reply should be the same with the addition, “and the mercy of God and His blessing.” Again, in the eight chapter:

“All true believers! When you meet the unbelievers marching in great numbers against you, turn not your backs on to them, for whoso shall turn his back on to them in that day, unless he turn aside to fight or retreat to another party of the faithful, shall draw on himself the indignation of God” (8:15–16).

The fact was that on the occasion when the injunction was given, Muslims could not avoid fighting, and there was, therefore, a necessity for a special strong appeal; but jihad, even when explained as a righteous effort of waging war in self defence against the grossest outrage on one’s religion, is strictly limited in the passage to which we have already alluded and which we now quote in extenso from the chapter entitled Al Hajj (The Pilgrimage):

“Permission is granted unto those who take arms against the unbelievers, because they have been unjustly persecuted by them and have been turned out of their habitations injuriously and for no other reason than because they say: our Lord is God. And if God did not repel the violence of some men by others, verily monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of God is frequently commemorated, would be utterly demolished” (22:39–40).

Publisher’s Note:
Dr Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner (1840–1899) was a linguist and university academic who built the Mosque at Woking, Surrey, in 1889, where he also intended to establish an oriental university. This is an abridgement of an article he published in 1886 in his Asiatic Quarterly Review, October 1886. Writing as a Christian scholar of Islam and religious history, he has most ably clarified the concept of jihad in Islam. In this leaflet we have replaced certain antiquated names used in the original article by their proper, current equivalents. Hence Muhammadans, Mussulmans, Muhammadanism etc. have been replaced here by Muslims and Islam.

Rebuttal 37b: After unavoidably admitting the true meaning of Jihad i.e. struggle, Shoebat could not keep away from his cheap shots, where he states – “…And as a matter of fact, I had this dialog with an Islamist one time, he says – ‘Walid, come-on, tell the West that Jihad means struggle.’ I said, ‘Yes, it does mean self-struggle, you’re right. Jihad does mean self-struggle, but so does Mein Kamph.’ Mein Kampf means My Struggle. In the same fashion, the Islamists look at Jihad.”

Shoebat, obviously you have not read “Mein Kampf” which is clear from the way you tried to rhyme in a distortion by using Hitler’s autobiography and his political ideology. This is similar to Issue 28 where you falsely score points by stating – “What part of kill don’t you [the West] understand?”

The documentary tries to inculcate in the audience a totally wrong perception of Jihad, which is far from its dictionary meanings, far removed from its implied meanings in Quran and has no example from life of Prophet Muhammad. All one can say to these pseudo-experts of the documentary is that Jihad is one of the strongest aspect of Islam. There are no apologies in rebutting and explaining the meanings, implications and purpose of Jihad as taught by Quran and practiced by Muhammad.

By using a bad and dishonest allegory, Shoebat is trying to teach the world a distorted doctrine of Jihad by citing a bad apple example of Jihadi fanaticism that was created and funded by West to begin with. On the reverse, he should not complain if someone preaches to the world the Christianity and its love of humanity by citing Hitler as its prime example.